Comments by jqb

"anonymity in the Independent? i thought that's what the NewsPress was for"

and

"i don't think there's any point in calling out the 3 who couldn't afford a lawyer by name"

are directly contradictory. Do try to make up your mind what it is that upsets you, anonymity or calling people out. Apparently you have quite a double standard -- NAMING people who are too poor to afford a lawyer is bad, and so is NOT NAMING people who aren't that poor (which for you apparently implies "have $$", even though we have no idea how much money these students have).

"i knew $$ could buy you a lot in this town including a great defense lawyer...but anonymity in the Independent?"

This notion that a bunch of rich white kids were being protected by the DA was silly enough before their identities were revealed, but now that we know who they really are and that three are so impoverished that they can't even afford lawyers, it's all the more ludicrous.

"i don't think there's any point in calling out the 3 who couldn't afford a lawyer by name."

Then perhaps you should start up a newspaper or a blog and write the articles yourself. The fact is that the others took no action -- as the article stated, they didn't enter pleas -- so there's nothing to report about them and no basis for mentioning their names, whereas the request by some of the defendants for public defenders is new information about them and it would be silly to report it by naming the seven who *didn't* make the request.

"i'm curious about the inequalities i see"

Could you possibly be more disingenuous? You are *asserting* inequalities and accusing the Independent of bias on the basis of nothing at all.

Mr. Close's "conclusion" is a free-floating opinion that certainly is not deducible from or evidenced by his previous statements. In any case, regardless of any inconsistencies between NYT opinion pieces and BBC articles -- neither of which is a peer-reviewed scientific journal -- the great preponderance of scientific evidence, of numerous sorts and from numerous sources, indicates the existence of anthropogenic global warming, which is why, as noted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientif..., "no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate".

Comments bashing those who opposed Prop 8, a large and diverse group, mostly of excellent citizens, and dismissing this crime motivated by bigotry as harmless, are the sort of unpleasantness we've come to expect from that particular source.

I suppose it's not surprising that some folks are taking this as an opportunity to air their personal ideological agendas and animosity toward "no on 8 protesters", "the gay community", and "many of the no on 8 campaign", but it's entirely inappropriate as commentary on this hate crime directed at two of the finest members of the Santa Barbara community and their beautiful family.

What we see playing out here seems to be the views that George Lakoff labels "strict father" (associated with conservatives) vs. "nurturing parent" (associated with liberals). I'll go with the latter -- high self esteem all around makes for a healthy society, and people with high self esteem can handle criticism and are willing to be critical of themselves, and they understand the difference between recognition of good behavior and rewards for excellence.

"and if that is the best you can come up with, then I just rest my case."

Good -- then you can shut up.

The opposition to gay marriage is and will remain EVIL, and none of the arguments given here by supporters of Prop 8 changes that. What will change is that, as with sexism and racism, the newer generations reject this evil; over 60% of those under 25 voted against Prop 8, and the bigotry against gays will eventually fade away.

<i>The two women, who were still in their teens at the time, now each hold respectable jobs and are mothers, but that "this caused a lot of chaos in their lives," she said.</i>

That is not a sentence. And it's horrid biased reporting, juxtaposing facts with the opinion of Dudley in order to try to make the latter seem factual. That word "but" gives it away -- it's in the reporter's voice yet supports Dudley's claim. But neither Dudley nor Meagher are legitimate authorities on these women's lives. A real reporter would find out, and tell us, what they have to say rather than mouthing the words of an extremely biased DA with a large vested interest.